On 17 April, the day after the BBC announced the appointment of the openly pro-Israel former editor of The Times, James Harding, as the organization’s director of news and current affairs, it screened a program called Israel: Facing the Future.

Ware’s most recent hour-long offering was strongly rooted in the Zionist narrative of the geo-political perils of Israel – that of the plucky little country, unthreatening and wishing to live in peace, but being forced to brave a constant battle against aggressive Arab neighbors and terrorist groups out to destroy it.

Ware’s constant references to “Jihadists,” “Islamists” and the Arabs at Israel’s “hostile borders” threatening to “destroy” “the world’s only Jewish state” were the framework on which Israel: Facing the Future was built. To add effect, every such reference was made against a backdrop of menacing, vaguely Arab music.

Propaganda and myth

This view of Israel is, of course, a propagandized one, which promotes myths over facts and attempts to ally a Western audience with Israel in the “war on Muslim terror.”

It also strongly echoes the view of the BBC’s new director of strategy and digital, James Purnell, who, like his new colleague, Harding, is openly pro-Israel.

Purnell, who served for two years as chair of the pro-Israeli parliamentary lobby group Labour Friends of Israel, made that view clear in a letter to Prospectmagazine in 2004.

Referring to the comparison made by campaigners between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa, Purnell wrote: “I find it hard to reconcile that image to the reality on the ground. Israel is a democracy, suffering terrorist attacks, surrounded by countries that don’t recognise its existence, the victim of well-funded terrorist organizations that preach anti-Semitic hate.”

Ware’s supposedly impartial documentary for BBC Two was a faithful reflection of Purnell’s mythologized viewpoint, a viewpoint also shared and promoted in Britain by the Zionist Federation and in the US by AIPAC. It pertinently left out the facts, including the fact of peace treaties signed and respected by Egypt and Jordan with Israel, and the offer by Hamas of a ten-year truce while borders are negotiated, an offer which Israel has rejected.

The question arises – if a journalist is flinging out sensationalized myths, accentuated by menacing background music, while omitting the facts that would demolish his agenda, at what point does his documentary cross the line into propaganda?

Disappearance of a documentary

A week after serving up this AIPAC-friendly fare for its fee-paying audience, the BBC gave up all claims to impartiality when it spectacularly pulled from its schedule a documentary questioning the scale of the Jewish exodus from Jerusalem nearly 2,000 years ago – the exodus on which Zionists base the Jewish “right to return” and to colonize what was once Palestine.

Jerusalem: An Archaeological Mystery Story was due to be shown on BBC Four on 25 April as part of the “BBC Four Archaeology Season.” It had been widely advertised by the BBC, including in media releases which promised the program would raise “important ethical questions about … present-day Middle Eastern issues.”

The BBC’s popular magazine, The Radio Times, promoted the program by declaring “Archaeology is politics in the Middle East.”

The article adds: “Which is why evidence revealed here [in the documentary], suggesting that the Jewish exile from Jerusalem in AD70 never actually happened has such severe ramifications for relations in the region.”

BBC bosses must have decided that the ramifications of showing the documentary would also be too great for the organization, not just the Middle East. At the eleventh hour, as viewers were settling down to watch Jerusalem, it disappeared from the schedule. License-fee payers who had set their televisions to record found themselves watching a repeat on Egypt.

Laughable excuses

At no point since then has the BBC provided a credible explanation for such a non-professional action.

To viewers and organizations, including Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who questioned the reasoning behind its decision, the BBC sent an email saying: “We originally acquired Jerusalem: An Archaeological Mystery Story to supplement BBC Four’s season exploring the history of archaeology. However, we have decided that it doesn’t fit editorially and are no longer planning to show it as part of the season.”

This pretence that the BBC, a massive organization with a global reputation, makes its scheduling decisions on a scatty, last-minute basis has been maintained by its staff ever since.

One viewer who wrote to Richard Klein, the controller of BBC Four, received this reply earlier this week, which she sent to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: “The film was acquired for showing in the BBC 4 Archaeology season and it was discovered late in the day that there were a number of potential issues with the film which made it inappropriate to be shown in this context.”

Can it really be true, as this email implies, that BBC employees schedule and promote a program but that no one actually bothers watching it until “late in the day” to find out what it’s about? The notion is incomprehensible, and the excuse is laughable.

Self-censorship at the BBC

Not surprisingly, Ilan Ziv, the Israeli-born documentary maker who made the hour-long film, has said that the official reason given by the BBC for pulling the documentary contradicts the reasons given to him in private.

In his blog on the subject, Ziv describes a “sad saga of what I believe is a mixture of incompetence, political naiveté [and] conscious or subconscious political pressure.”

Tellingly, he adds that the BBC has viewed his film “through partisan glasses” and concludes: “I hope that somewhere in the BBC someone will rise above the hysteria and the attempts at self-censorship to take a cooler look at the film.”

To ask the BBC to remove its partisan glasses, to not cave to political pressure, to stop self-censoring is an almost impossible request when it comes to Israel.

Even in straightforward news interviews, the BBC clearly demonstrates its preferences.

This was apparent on yesterday’s Today program (9 May), the BBC’s daily flagship news and current affairs program which sets the agenda for the organization’s overall news coverage.

Biased interviewing

Humphry’s first question – “You think it’s wrong that he’s pulled out?” – was put to Greene, who was allowed to speak without interruption or challenge, putting across all the points he wanted to and in the manner he wanted them heard.

Greene was thus allowed to set the agenda – the Zionist trope that boycotts stymie dialogue and are bad for peace - which Humphrys followed for the rest of the item.

His first question to Karmi, therefore, was: “Isn’t it always better if people talk to each other?” Five seconds after she began talking, Humphrys interrupted her. Seventeen seconds later, he interrupted again, and 20 seconds after that Karmi was interrupted again, before Humphrys stopped her altogether to return to Greene.

To Greene he suggested that Hawking’s stance had been successful in that people were now discussing the situation of the Palestinian people. Greene, a paid advocate for Israel, was then allowed to speak for a full minute, again with no interruption or challenge from Humphrys, apart from a mumbled approval of “right” from the BBC journalist midway through his spiel.

Back to Karmi, whose 60 seconds were twice interrupted by Humphrys, first after just nine seconds and then 25 seconds after that. Humphrys broke in to question her in a tone that was alternatively mocking or weary, as he actually repeated Greene’s arguments and demanded an answer to them.

Incredibly, at one point, Humphrys even appeared to question the fact of the occupation, cutting short Karmi, who had mentioned the fact that the West Bank is under occupation, to say: “So the boycott will continue until the occupation — as you described it — has lifted?”

The last word, as the first word, was then given to the pro-Israeli interviewee, who used his uninterrupted time to claim that “every Israeli government … is in favor of a two-state solution.” The BBC presenter could have interrupted him to ask how he could make such an assertion in light of Israel’s continued illegal settlement building, but Humphrys merely muttered another approving “right” before bringing the item to a close.

(The interview can be heard on iPlayer until 16 May. The item is at 1:34:40)

Fact presented as opinion

The treatment of the two interviewees could not have been more different. Humphrys showed deference to the pro-Israel advocate, refused to challenge him and even appeared, with his utterings of “right,” to be agreeing with him. On the other side, the Palestinian interviewee’s flow was continuously broken by Humphrys, in a tone that bordered on scorn, as he demanded answers to points that had been made by Greene. His interviewing style was unbalanced and utterly biased in Greene’s favor.

Karmi is a veteran campaigner for Palestine and proved more than a match for Humphrys. However, speaking to me after the interview, she said she had noticed that Humphrys “jumped down my throat from the beginning.”

On his questioning of the existence of the occupation, Karmi said: “It’s typical of the trend which Israel started, of denigrating international law. The Israelis call the West Bank ‘disputed territories,’ not an occupation, and the BBC has taken its cue from the Israelis.

“Whenever a Palestinian speaks, the BBC says ‘claims.’ For example, ‘you claim they have taken your land.’ It’s the idea that it’s just your opinion.”

Karmi added: “It’s in line with the general attitude which the Israelis have taught them, and what’s really disappointing is that they really do allow the Israeli agenda to dominate them.”

The events of the last few weeks bear out Karmi’s opinion. And it is noticeable that while BBC Two broadcast Ware’s hour-long documentary about Israel to mark its “Independence Day,” there is nothing in the BBC’s schedule next week to mark the anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba on 14 May.

“The BBC is now culturally and socially stuck in the Zionist frame,” says Tim Llewellyn, the BBC’s former Middle East correspondent.

“Whether this is fear of the Zionist lobby and its many friends in the three British political parties, sheer inbuilt prejudice, ignorance of the facts, history and nuances that every reporter, producer and editor should by now know, I am not sure,” he tells me. “I suspect a combination of all three”

“But the fact is, the BBC prefers to serve an alien power’s interests before that of its own viewers, listeners and readers, and the people who actually pay for it.”

There are still license-fee payers who trust the BBC’s news and current affairs coverage implicitly. However, its treatment of Israel and the Palestinians over the last few weeks – a concentrated dose of its normal style of coverage of this region – should make even this band of people sit up and think again.

Comments

- The boycott by Pro Stephen Hawking of the Israeli conference. I was very disappointed with Humphrys interview. I thought it was very biased and one sided, in favor of Dr Greene, who was given free rang , to state his point. But Dr Karmi was interrupted many time, and was put down by Humphrys. I Know the BBC is very pro Israel, but I did not expect it of John Humphrys. I mistakenly though he would plow his own furrow, not stick to the party line.

Another great insight into this disturbing issue. The BBC is not just a British broadcaster, it's global, so all its subtle messages about what's truth and what's opinion, has far-reaching effects. It's time a major newspaper took this up as a campaign, and showed the zionist BBC up for what it is.

I had listened to BBC Radio 4, with the Today programme in particular, for something like forty two years. I stopped about six months ago when it became blatant that the BBC was nothing but a mouthpiece of Zionism and Israel.

Peter Oborne has written several pieces over the years when he has questioned the 'friends of Israel' and their stranglehold on UK politics and media, mentioning in particular one of the Dimbleby's who, over an alcoholic lunch, was quite condemning of the 'friends of Israel' and their grip on staffing, but the next day phoned to plead that his comments should not be published as his career would suffer.

The friends of Israel have virtually shut down all criticism of Israel in UK media, either by not publishing articles of Israeli atrocities or apartheid policies, or, when articles do get published, such as the recent Stephen Hawking support for the Boycott, then the 'comments' are always disabled because the anti Israel comments far outnumber the pro Israel comments in the Independent and surprisingly often the Telegraph as well.

Even the supposed left leaning Guardian has succumbed to the pressure, possibly because the Editor was 'visited' by a particularly foulmouthed obnoxious character who I once had the unfortunate experience to work for,and the 'visit' according to Peter Oborne's first report on this subject was 'heavy' !

The whole 'hasbara' industry, pushed by the ZF, BICOM, the Israeli Embassy, the Jewish Board of Deputies, and the Jewish media like the JC and Jewish News has been pursued by the BBC for years as it was continually under pressure, and now has succumbed to a distorted frame of reference, which together with the previously named bodies, make them all complicit with Israel in the denial of international law, and infringement of human rights .

The BBC has form. During all of the colonial struggles that Britain has been involved in - Palestine, Malaya, Cyprus, Aden, Kenya, Ireland etc. - the BBC has always promoted the imperialist point of view. In the case of Palestine they're currently getting a lot of extra help from the Israeli/AIPAC propaganda and lobbying industry.

This is John Humphrys, BBC-journalist.
Greene says: "Universities in the West Bank are not under Israeli control".
Humphrys follows: "The point is that they [Universities in the West Bank] are not controlled by Israel". And: "... the occupation — as you described it — ...". So far for knowing facts.

As Kharmi says: the boycott is "meant to give a signal, to raise awareness, to make people understand who might not know the situation ...". That would be BBC journalists in the first place.

John Humphreys and Jim Naughtie should be sent on a trip to the West Bank and Gaza, shown around by Palestinian or activist Israeli NGOs - and around Israel with Adalah and Zochrot, to get the true picture. The BBC correspondents, despite seeing all this still surprisingly present such a limited and distorted picture of news and current affairs -and never interview the people who are really in the know. It is usually seen through Israeli government eyes. When you get a reporter who presents the news straight -like Orla Guerin or Barbara Plett, they get removed from their posts due to protest by the Zionist lobbies in the UK and US.

BBC you must not continue to provide us the tax payers with biased one sided shabby journalism. Once again in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict John Humphries has shown the BBC bias. Does anyone in BBC actually listen to these complaints and hear how often Humphries interrupted the Palestinian representative in his sneering, condescending manner? The Israeli representative got the 1st and last word without interruption. Is this fair and balanced journalism?

I would support a boycott of tv license fees to the BBC as they continue to push the zionist agenda. Broadband can do the same job and withholding fees can bring the management in line with public feelings of anger towards their biased views and reporting in respect of the palistinian struggle.

I missed this edition, but ask John Humphrys, or a more senior BBC person, to reply to the posted comments.
It is essential that people in Britain can rely on unbiassed interviewers. I strongly agree with the contributer who asks Humphrys to visit Palestine, perhaps with an Israeli Committee Against House Demolition tour, and/or listens to British groups such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians, New Israel, Ecumenical Accompaniers or Medical Aid for Palestinians. I plead this for the sake of Israel and true Judaism as much as for Palestinians.